Antonio Dolcetta on Mon, 16 Jan 2006 05:30:25 -0600 (CST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[s-d] Re: [s-b] Peter submits p339 - Defendant's argument.

Mark Walsh wrote:
On: 1/12/06 4:45:42 PM this CFI was sent:
Subject: [s-b] [auto] Peter submits p339

Peter has submitted a new Motion, p339.

Motion 339/0: All Supers are Super
A CFI by Peter
Last modified on nweek 104, nday 1

[[This is a CFI. It becomes Open at the end of Saturday at midnight UTC,
and resolves at the end of next Wednesday at midnight UTC.]]
Both Antonio's and Triller's recognitions and dice rolls for Charles's
training on nweek 103 nday 12 were valid, and each incremented Charles's
Skills accordingly.
Defendant: Triller

List of changes:
Change the state of the game in accordance with the statement, as both
sets of rolls increased Charles's Skills. [[I'm not really sure what else
to put here.]]
Plaintiff's Argument:
Rule 4-1 states that "Any Player holding a Ministry is known as a
Minister of that Ministry."
Rule 4-4 states that "The Ministry of Housing is a Ministry; its Minister
may be called the Super."
This sounds to me like each minister of Housing may be called the Super.
The ordinances of the Training Room include "A Player pays one Action
Point to see a 2D3 roll that the Super calls."
Now, we don't really have any definition of what it means to call a roll.
But a reasonable definition that fits game precedent is that the minister
recognizes the action, rolls the dice, and announces the result.
But, we have more than one minister that "called" the roll. I don't see
any reason why this is a problem. Since there *can* be more than one Super,
and in fact is, any reference to "the Super" must refer to one of them. But
it sure seems to me like it could just as easily be each of them.
So, each of the ministers can call such a roll, and have the results
increment the Skills accordingly.a
Rule 4-4 itself contains similar language, saying that "The Manager is
responsible for maintaining a Public Display of Motions." and "The Banker
is responsible for tracking and maintaining...". What could those mean
*except* that *each* such minister is responsible for those things? If only
one minister were responsible for them, then what would the other minister
be there for?
Defendant's Argument:
Unfortunately, Training Room Ordinances retained most of the poetic
form of the Sonnet Proposal that created them. This could have been
changed by later Proposal, but hasn't been yet.
The fact that Trainging Room Ordinances specifcally say "that the Super calls" is redundant and superfluous.
By Rule 4-4, even without this clause, the Super is responsible for
"any Condition or Attribute defined in Chapter 10 of the Rules."

By the Plaintiff's reasoning, any Ministry that is held by more than
a single Minister could and should have any action that falls in the
purview of that Ministry acted on multiple times. An extreme example:

Peter regularly posts a list of Amplitude changes and Genechip awards
with the voting results each nweek, though there is nothing in 3-4 or
9-8 that places this courtesy in the Keeper's purview. These duties should
really fall to the Secretary and the Banker. Now lets posit that there are
each of these latter Ministers and both recognize the Amplitude changes and
Genechip bonuses for a given vote. By the Plaintiff's reasoning, this would
grant double Amplitude bonuses and double Genechip bonuses. Take it one
step further and posit two Deaths. Now Amplitude Amplifier effects are counted twice! I don't believe this is desirable.

Ultimately, the subsection 'Activated Abilities' in Rule 1-2 should be the
defining statute:
"An Object allowed to play an activated ability may do so as a Game
Action by paying {cost} to cause {effect} to happen."
Training Room Ordinances state:
"A Player pays one Action Point to see a 2d3 roll that the Super calls."
So, an Object (a Player) is allowed to play an activated ability as a Game
Action by paying a cost (pays one Action Point) to cause an effect (to see a 2D3 roll) to happen. By 4-4 the Super is responsible, even though
it is explicit here.
Since Charles had 6 Action Points at the time of Activating this Ability
of the Training Room, e may perform this Game Action 6 times.
Once 6 dice rolls have been performed in accordance with Rule 1-2,
Charles has no APs remaining, and so any further dice rolls have not been
payed for, and are thus illegal (or superfluous).

The Training Room Ordinance is in question, but the arguments are
formed around interpretations of rules:
Plaintiff: Rules in Section 4,
Defendant: A Rule in Section 1.
By Rule 2-2, the Rule with the lower Section number takes precedence.

Antonio rightly ruled that the first 6 dice rolls received from the SORC,
were the proper rolls to apply in awarding Stat changes to Charles in this matter.


Rather than the fact of there being two supers (it's silly to think that if there are two ministers things happen twice) I think that the thing we must look at is the exact wording of the training room ordinances.

A Player pays one Action Point to see a 2D3 roll that the Super calls.

it can mean either:
"one AP" -> "one roll" (that the super calls)
"one AP" -> "the super calls a roll" -> and from this we could get to "each super calls a roll"

But why should we try to read it that way ?


spoon-discuss mailing list